westernxer Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Maybe the answer is yes in the land down under, but not here in Los Angeles. Image trumps everything in Los Angeles. LOL Link to post Share on other sites
rafallus Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I don't have a house as I haven't decided yet in what country I would like to eventually settle, but LOL at people thinking they "own a house" and owe 80% of its value to the bank. Very good point! I've noticed quite a few newlyweds, who are proud of life, because they just got married, took a credit and bought a house. They are soooo independent... oh, wait. How about at least 20-30 years of paying back, when you obviously pay more than you got? Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) But I must also say, as a female who turned 30 this year and really wants to settle down with the right guy, a man who owns his own place is certainly a plus. Shows me that he's serious enough about a home, so he might just be interested in settling down with a special someone and start a family. Not saying that's true for all guys, but for me, that's what I think. Owning a house has no relevance with a person's personal desire to settle down. Thats just foolish. Most people buy a house just to have a place they call their own, not because they want to start a family. Yeah, but then again the same people who are against this are the same ones who were impressed by the Royal Wedding and how sweet it was the Prince married way below his family's means. I do not see anything wrong with it, if both parties are happy in their arrangements. Who are these people you are talking about? Besides, Prince William is a very unappealing man. Not only he is already balding in his early 30s, he also never had a real job and still lives in his parents home. If he werent a Prince, no woman would even look at him twice. The reason William was willing to 'marry down' was because Kate Meddleton is the most beautiful woman he could ever dream of marrying and the reason Kate was willing to marry him was because he is the Prince of Britain. Edited August 15, 2011 by musemaj11 Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 If you are smart you buy property that's likely to have its value increasing over time - even if you allow for a recession to affect the market for a while. If you are not lazy, you will buy property that needs work doing to it (ie you buy it cheaply initially in rubbish condition) and it will definitely have an increased value once you have finished doing it up. Whether the bank owes 80% or not makes no difference because what you care about is the value of the 20% that you own. If that keeps going up (as the value of the house keeps going up) it means you have more money than you started it with. Plus it is a much better investment opportunity for pension age than having a private pension. If you can't work out the above - and some people on this thread can't - then you are a bit thick Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 If you are smart you buy property that's likely to have its value increasing over time - even if you allow for a recession to affect the market for a while. If you are not lazy, you will buy property that needs work doing to it (ie you buy it cheaply initially in rubbish condition) and it will definitely have an increased value once you have finished doing it up. Whether the bank owes 80% or not makes no difference because what you care about is the value of the 20% that you own. If that keeps going up (as the value of the house keeps going up) it means you have more money than you started it with. Plus it is a much better investment opportunity for pension age than having a private pension. If you can't work out the above - and some people on this thread can't - then you are a bit thick But houses don't work this way in the short-term. Of course, they're a great LT investment, but if you don't imagine staying somewhere for at least a decade, unless you're going to really nice it up and try to flip it (not as smart these days anyway), it's more like an anchor. Long term, a house is a good investment (for old age, as you say), IMO, but not short-term as an idea to make money and move on if you want to. And you should never buy a house you don't want to live in for a damn long time for investment purposes. Markets in the U.S. have often proven volatile, though when they're good, people always forget. Link to post Share on other sites
LoveandSuch Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Owning a house has no relevance with a person's personal desire to settle down. Thats just foolish. Most people buy a house just to have a place they call their own, not because they want to start a family. Who are these people you are talking about? Besides, Prince William is a very unappealing man. Not only he is already balding in his early 30s, he also never had a real job and still lives in his parents home. If he werent a Prince, no woman would even look at him twice. The reason William was willing to 'marry down' was because Kate Meddleton is the most beautiful woman he could ever dream of marrying and the reason Kate was willing to marry him was because he is the Prince of Britain. Who am I talking about? It is often argued, on every thread, that women should contribute equally in all relationships. I highly doubt Kate has contributed equally in the relationship to this day. I am sure he has paid for 98% of their luxuries. So, she is the poster child, according to this board, of the female golddigger, with an entiltlement complex. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Who am I talking about? It is often argued, on every thread, that women should contribute equally in all relationships. I highly doubt Kate has contributed equally in the relationship to this day. I am sure he has paid for 98% of their luxuries. So, she is the poster child, according to this board, of the female golddigger, with an entiltlement complex. William doesnt even have a job! When he paid on a date, he didnt pay for it. The British people did. Link to post Share on other sites
LoveandSuch Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 William doesnt even have a job! When he paid on a date, he didnt pay for it. The British people did. He has a fortune, and it is his money. Does not matter how someone acquires there wealth legally, it is his money, regardless if he works or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 If you are smart you buy property that's likely to have its value increasing over time - even if you allow for a recession to affect the market for a while. So you are basically saying you should try to buy property that's underpriced? That's brilliant! I wonder why no one else ever thought of that before... Whether the bank owes 80% or not makes no difference because what you care about is the value of the 20% that you own. If that keeps going up (as the value of the house keeps going up) it means you have more money than you started it with. Plus it is a much better investment opportunity for pension age than having a private pension. If you can't work out the above - and some people on this thread can't - then you are a bit thick It's very relevant. Say you buy a 200k house, you have 40k and you borrow 160k. At 5% interest in the first year, you owe the bank 8k after the first year. If you bought a house that was underpriced (and who wouldn't, after reading your brilliant tip) and has a 5% value increase after a year (which will most likely be way too optimistic, at least for the thick people who don't have your extended knowledge of the real estate market), then your share of the house will be worth 42k instead of the original 40k. That's a 2k profit! Unfortunately, it means all together you're still 6k in the hole. Now that 6k may or may not be a bargain compared to what renting a similar place for a year would cost, but even if it is it's still hardly the investment of the century. If you could use those brains of yours to figure out a similar strategy in the stock market that no one ever was aware of before (buy if a share is going to increase in value), you would make a return on investment that's way higher. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) So you are basically saying you should try to buy property that's underpriced? That's brilliant! I wonder why no one else ever thought of that before... It's very relevant. Say you buy a 200k house, you have 40k and you borrow 160k. At 5% interest in the first year, you owe the bank 8k after the first year. If you bought a house that was underpriced (and who wouldn't, after reading your brilliant tip) and has a 5% value increase after a year (which will most likely be way too optimistic, at least for the thick people who don't have your extended knowledge of the real estate market), then your share of the house will be worth 42k instead of the original 40k. That's a 2k profit! Unfortunately, it means all together you're still 6k in the hole. Now that 6k may or may not be a bargain compared to what renting a similar place for a year would cost, but even if it is it's still hardly the investment of the century. If you could use those brains of yours to figure out a similar strategy in the stock market that no one ever was aware of before (buy if a share is going to increase in value), you would make a return on investment that's way higher. Your tone and derogatory comments to the quoted poster makes your post absolutely not readable.. Why post in such a derogatory manner ?. if your post is anything like how you are IRL then you must be something else to be around. I get that the poster you were quoting used the word thick but why continue the foolishness ? By the way.. your math is flawed.. you forgot the tax deduction for your home and tax consequence for an investment in your infinite wisdom... Edited August 15, 2011 by Art_Critic Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 By the way.. your math is flawed.. you forgot the tax deduction for your home and tax consequence for an investment in your infinite wisdom... As you may or may not be aware of, there are countries in the world other than the USA. Those countries have other systems for taxes and different deductions. In many (if I had time to look it up I would probably be able to put "most") countries there are no tax deductions for mortgage or things related to buying a house at all. As for the investment consequences, I didn't use numbers but I'm convinced someone with a good understanding of the market can get a higher ROI than 5%, even after taxes (that is, in most countries with a somewhat sane tax situation). Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 As you may or may not be aware of, there are countries in the world other than the USA. You quoted a poster that is in the UK not the USA.. Maybe you should do some research before you post as not everyone knows what country you are speaking about, by the way.. The UK does have deductions concerning home ownership. I certainly hope you are not in the financial consultation business. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 As for the investment consequences, I didn't use numbers but I'm convinced someone with a good understanding of the market can get a higher ROI than 5%, even after taxes (that is, in most countries with a somewhat sane tax situation). Since when was this thread about the ROI of owning a home vs turning and burning stocks ?? Most people buy a home to live in.. Link to post Share on other sites
LoveandSuch Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Since when was this thread about the ROI of owning a home vs turning and burning stocks ?? Most people buy a home to live in.. Ha ha ha! I guess you can say, there may be a lack of common wealth, virtues, and ties, but there will always, must I say, always be something to argue about!:laugh: Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Since when was this thread about the ROI of owning a home vs turning and burning stocks ?? Most people buy a home to live in.. The person I replied to argued the value of a house goes up in time, hence seeing it as something that can be converted back to cash at some point, which means she did see it as an investment, or at least partially. She even specifically mentionned the words "better investment opportunity". Are you surprised if someone answers why it's not then? I certainly hope you are not in the financial consultation business. Why is that? Do you think all financial consultants have or should have a perfect knowledge of tax deductions everywhere in the world? Don't you think that would be a huge waste of time and resources as the information would be irrelevant to the huge majority of the customers? For the record, I'm not. Link to post Share on other sites
Kelemort Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I'm in my mid-20s now and I tend to date older...so it is a disadvantage if a man that age is still living with his parents. I've done that whole dating scene and it's annoying as crap to have a guy's parents constantly invading your privacy, bursting into his room (if it doesn't have locks - a disadvantage I grew up with) to aggravate the two of you, requesting you both to go on errands for them while you're spending time together, etc. In other words, I've rarely seen a man who lives with his parents NOT act sort of like their personal slave/servant. I grew up with my own and they were like that - constantly needing things from me - and guys I've dated in the past who lived with their parents had annoying situations like that. I wouldn't want to do it again. I like going over to a guy's place and having a space we can call our OWN (even if I don't live with him). Where we can cook, watch what we'd like, etc., and not be sequestered to his bedroom to have any time alone or something. It also shows initiative. I sure as **** wouldn't be happy still living with my parents. If he's pushing 30, why is he so okay with it? It shows a lack of ambition and drive, and frankly, this is still a society ruled by gender roles. It would also show me that he's not keen on supporting or helping to support a future family if he can't afford/doesn't want to move out on his own. A house, apartment, etc. doesn't matter. Just the fact that he can afford to have his own place or is at least making strides toward it. Link to post Share on other sites
phineas Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Honestly no roommates is all that mattered to women. Having your own place & not being restricted to the bedroom is such a bonus. I got a house. women dig that. I am the king of the castle! Link to post Share on other sites
lino Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 It certainly does. Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Honestly no roommates is all that mattered to women. Having your own place & not being restricted to the bedroom is such a bonus. I got a house. women dig that. I am the king of the castle! I guess I'm weird on this, too. I prefer a guy with roommates (roommates that he's friends with and gets along with---it shows he enjoys living in a community). My current BF has no roommates, but he has a cat and a dog. I don't really understand people who'd rather live alone. But that may be a "you'll get it as you get older" thing. I've lived alone when living abroad/traveling because accommodations were often provided for me, but it was usually in settings where friends lived in at least the same hall or building, and I would've preferred a bigger, shared unit than my studio alone. Now, I live with roommates. Living alone by choice sounds so weird. I like having someone there to ask about my day, almost like a family away from my family, and I appreciate men who like that as well. My BF lives alone because his best friend got married and moved out, and he just didn't get another roommate (this was last year), and that I can get, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 He has a fortune, and it is his money. Does not matter how someone acquires there wealth legally, it is his money, regardless if he works or not. If I found money on the street and I bought a burger with it, technically the burger is free since I didnt waste any opportunity cost in order to acquire that money. A person is not generous if he give away money that he gets from someone else. Someone is generous if he is willing to give what he earned through hard work. Link to post Share on other sites
rafallus Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 He has a fortune, and it is his money. Does not matter how someone acquires there wealth legally, it is his money, regardless if he works or not. Let's rob a bank tomorrow then!:bunny: You are so entertaining. Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyDude Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 This thread has sent me right to the toilet Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 If I found money on the street and I bought a burger with it, technically the burger is free since I didnt waste any opportunity cost in order to acquire that money. No, the concept of an opportunity cost is that you could have used that money to do something else (better) with it, and if you buy the burger you won't benefit from buying the other good. Let's rob a bank tomorrow then!:bunny: You are so entertaining. AFAIK that's not a legal way to acquire money () Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts